Figure 1. The spacetime geometry of the
Schwarzschild black hole solution can be depicted in different ways. In
this representation, ingoing light rays always travel along ingoing
lines heading toward the top and left at 45°; outgoing light rays
asymptotically approach 45° lines at large radius r.
Massive particles, with their slower speeds, must travel within the
light cones (blue) between outgoing and ingoing light rays, as
illustrated by the red path. No light ray can escape to infinity from
inside the vertical dotted line, the horizon located at the
mass-dependent Schwarzschild radius R(M). Instead, any trajectory beginning inside the horizon is pulled to a central point, the singularity at r = 0, where spacetime curvature becomes infinite.

Friday, August 16, 2013

NuSTAR is opening a new window on the Universe by being the first
satellite to focus high-energy X-rays into sharp images. NuSTAR’s
high-energy X-rays eyes see with more than 100 times the sensitivity of
previous missions that have operated in this part of the electromagnetic
spectrum, and with 10 times better resolution. NuSTAR sheds light on
some of the hottest, densest, and most energetic objects in the
universe.Education & Outreach

Sunday, May 05, 2013

NASA contracted with Orbital Sciences Corporation to launch NuSTAR (mass 772 pounds (350 kg))[11] on a Pegasus XL rocket for 21 March 2012.[5] It had earlier been planned for 15 August 2011, 3 February 2012, 16 March 2012, and 14 March 2012.[12]
After a launch meeting on 15 March 2012, the launch was pushed further
back to allow time to review flight software used by the launch
vehicle's flight computer.[13] The launch was conducted successfully at 16:00:37 UTC on 13 June 2012[1] about 117 nautical miles south of Kwajalein Atoll.[14] The Pegasus rocket was dropped from the L-1011 'Stargazer' aircraft.[11][15]

On 22 June 2012 it was confirmed that the 10 m mast was fully deployed.[16]

Black Holes: Complementarity vs Firewalls

We argue that the following three statements cannot all be true: (i) Hawking
radiation is in a pure state, (ii) the information carried by the radiation is
emitted from the region near the horizon, with low energy effective field
theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon, and (iii) the
infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon. Perhaps the most
conservative resolution is that the infalling observer burns up at the horizon.
Alternatives would seem to require novel dynamics that nevertheless cause
notable violations of semiclassical physics at macroscopic distances from the
horizon. Black Hole: Complementarity vs Firewall

This lecture presents some particular thoughts that rang a bell for me in terms of what reporting was done here earlier on the thought experiments by Susskind on how one may interpret information gained by the process of entanglement to an observer outside the black hole.

Various neutron interferometry experiments demonstrate the subtlety of the notions of duality and complementarity. By passing through the interferometer, the neutron appears to act as a wave. Yet upon passage, the neutron is subject to gravitation. As the neutron interferometer is rotated through Earth's gravitational field
a phase change between the two arms of the interferometer can be
observed, accompanied by a change in the constructive and destructive
interference of the neutron waves on exit from the interferometer. Some
interpretations claim that understanding the interference effect
requires one to concede that a single neutron takes both paths through
the interferometer at the same time; a single neutron would "be in two
places at once", as it were. Since the two paths through a neutron
interferometer can be as far as 5 cm to 15 cm
apart, the effect is hardly microscopic. This is similar to traditional
double-slit and mirror interferometer experiments where the slits (or
mirrors) can be arbitrarily far apart. So, in interference and
diffraction experiments, neutrons behave the same way as photons (or
electrons) of corresponding wavelength. See: Complementarity (physics)

Contents

Dead addresses

The most common form of black hole is simply an IP address that specifies a host machine that is not running or an address to which no host has been assigned.
Even though TCP/IP provides means of communicating the delivery failure back to the sender via ICMP, traffic destined for such addresses is often just dropped.
Note that a dead address will be undetectable only to protocols that
are both connectionless and unreliable (e.g., UDP). Connection-oriented
or reliable protocols (TCP, RUDP) will either fail to connect to a dead address or will fail to receive expected acknowledgements.

Firewalls and "stealth" ports

Most firewalls can be configured to silently discard packets addressed to forbidden hosts or ports, resulting in small or large "black holes" in the network.

Black hole filtering

Black hole filtering refers specifically to dropping packets at the routing level, usually using a routing protocol to implement the filtering on several routers at once, often dynamically to respond quickly to distributed denial-of-service attacks.

PMTUD black holes

Some firewalls incorrectly discard all ICMP packets, including the ones needed for Path MTU discovery to work correctly. This causes TCP connections from/to/through hosts with a lower MTU to hang.

Black hole e-mail addresses

A black hole e-mail address
is an e-mail address which is valid (messages sent to it will not
generate errors), but to which all messages sent are automatically
deleted, and never stored or seen by humans. These addresses are often
used as return addresses for automated e-mails.

Friday, January 27, 2012

We investigate possible signatures of black hole events at the LHC in the hypothesis that such objects will not evaporate completely, but leave a stable remnant. For the purpose of de fining a reference scenario, we have employed the publicly available Monte Carlo generator CHARYBDIS2, in which the remnant's behavior is mostly determined by kinematic constraints and conservation of some quantum numbers, such as the baryon charge. Our fi ndings show that electrically neutral remnants are highly favored and a signifi cantly larger amount of missing transverse momentum is to be expected with respect to the case of complete decay.See: Black Hole Remnants at the LHC by L. Bellagambab, R. Casadioa;by, R. Di Sipioa;bz and V. Viventiax 16 Jan 2012

If the fundamental Planck scale is of order a TeV, as the case in some extradimensions scenarios, future hadron colliders such as the Large Hadron Collider will be black hole factories. The non-perturbative process of black hole formation and decay by Hawking evaporation gives rise to spectacular events with up to many dozens of relatively hard jets and leptons, with a characteristic ratio of hadronic to leptonic activity of roughly 5:1. The total transverse energy of such events is typically a sizeable fraction of the beam energy. Perturbative hard scattering processes at energies well above the Planck scale are cloaked behind a horizon, thus limiting the ability to probe short distances. The high energy black hole cross section grows with energy at a rate determined by the dimensionality and geometry of the extra dimensions.See: High Energy Colliders as Black Hole Factories: The End of Short Distance Physics

Saturday, September 08, 2007

3) It is claimed that cosmic rays can energy exceeding that of colliders, and they have not caused trouble, suggesting that colliders will not cause trouble either. However, the analogy is not precise. It assumes two things that may not be true. First, cosmic ray center of mass energy exceeding that of colliders has never been measured directly. Measurements that seem to show this are based on showers of secondary particles. Second, the product of a collision between a cosmic ray and an earth particle will always be moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. If it has a small capture radius, it will always pass right through earth like a neutrino. The product of a collider collision can (sometimes) be moving at less than escape velocity from earth. If so, it will fall into earth where it will have forever to accrete other matter. Some calculations show rapid accretion.

Using this above as one basis of the argument, it was by these assumptions that I too was convinced things would be okay. There are a lot of things that go with this statement that currently is not expressed given current information in regards to Pierre Auger experiments. That when clearly seen in the light of current research into LHC, does not allow one to take in all that they should be.

Go back to John Ellis and current research if you must, and thinking in terms of the cosmos. It's infancy, and one does not disregard the "origins and beginnings" of this universe. Are there reasons that are less then desired that would govern any legal defence team based on some "religious affiliation" and driven from this religious context? I hope not.

We would not want some Woitian backlash, as done with string theory, from a intelligent design standpoint, as a recognized motived factor in that legal defense. It is far beyond me that I ask these associative questions, yet, these images come to mind when ever the establishment hosting the world's collective scientists, is confronted by the very issues that seem evasive in regards to safety?

Energies Used in Particle Creation

It would behove any person to take the time to travel to the links I am supplying, to help you absorb as much information as possible.With the full intention that what I am describing does have a distillation process that will become very simple in qualitative design.

Finding the energy range with which we are dealing within our colliders, has awakened the realization of the complexity dimensional attributes would have considering E8.

"I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered."Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

The complexity of the blackhole would have allowed the possibilities of describing the source of "all dimensional attributes" knowing that the collapse of the blackhole would bring temperatures to the point of the quark Gluon plasma. What would be happening to allow such complexity?

This basis of thought on my part is, "the equivalence determined" and thought about in terms of Lagrangian considerations. This another topic. But does deal with the understanding of the potential microscopic blackholes that could be produced, determined by the energy levels

I am writing this blog entry because of Walter's comments on the side.

It is very hard for me knowing that there is a train of thought developed through my research. This question of cascading showers, were with the understanding of "energy events" that allowed us to see a "greater plethora of mapping" that would direct us to the very essence of symmetry breaking, based on experimental processes herein this blog described.

In doing my own research, I tried to follow the thinking of the literature presented on the topic of microscopic blackholes. Now there was to my understanding a theoretical position assumed, from what we understood when dealing with the topic, and the understanding of what Cern was to produce.

Now to me the basis of settling the questions of safety, were answered by association of "what was natural" within the domains of these cascading particle showers in terms of these cosmic rays.

If we were after the origins and beginnings to our universe, we were in essence, describing and mapping the beginning times of these particle showers. Also, the dimensional attributes of the interior of the blackhole.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

I had been following this research because of what I had been trying to understand when we take our understanding down to a certain level. That level is within the context of us probing the collision process for evidence of "some new physics" that we had not seen before.

What valuation of this process allows us to think that while speaking to "probing this perfect fluid" that we had not discovered some mechanism within it, that allows us to see Coleman Mandula effects being behind, as a geometrical unfoldment from one state into another?

If we had looked at the Genus 1 figure then what avenue would help us discern what could come from the string theory landscape and the "potential hill" discerned from the blackhole horizon? What tunnelling effect could go past the hill climbers and valley crossers to know that you could cut "right through the hill?"

So while I am looking for some indications as I did in the strangelet case, as, evidence of this crossover, this had to have some relation to how we seen the neutrinos in development. This was part of the development as we learnt of the history of John Bahcall.

This does not minimize the work we see of Gran Sasso in relation to the LHC project.

Honestly, I do not know how someone who could work on the project, could not know what they were working on? It as if the "little parts" of the LHC project only cater to the worker Bees working just aspects of the project and their specializations.

Whilst now, you go way up and overlook this project. To see the whole context measured within that "one tiny big bang moment." Trust me when I say, we shall not minimize the effect of calling the collision process as "one tiny moment," for you may never see the whole context of this project being developed for this "one thing."

I did not realize the shortcomings that scientists place on themselves when they do specialize. I just assumed they would know as much as I did and see the whole project? I do not say this unkindly, just that it is a shock to me that one could work the string theory models and not realize what they are working on. I have heard even Jacques say there is no connection and listening to Peter Woit, I was equally dismayed that he did not realize what the string theory model was actually doing as it found it's correlation in the developing views of how we look at the moments of creation.

I think my comment on previous post of looking for the perfect fluid should have been here.

Also I do not think this changes how we look at string theory as a model probing the perfect fluid, and "the understanding" of developing a mechanism for this "cross over point?"

Topologically, how would this have been revealed in the string theory landscape?? See here and know that Clifford again deleted the short little post above. The point is I think for some reason once I mention string theory or evn M theory in relation to what is transpiring in the views of model development he doe not like this and would be support by Jacques as well.

That would be my job to convince them and anyone else that hold their views that taking our view to the microseconds, there is a definite relation to the timeline whether you agree with this or not. By introducing "the point of the cross over" you in effect have taken the model and presented it as part of the mechanism for this universe and effectively given new meaning to the "string theory landscape."

You may want it to be "background independent" like Lee wants it to be, but if you view the background as a oscillatory one, then any idea as configured to the mass of any particle, then you have define this particle as a energy relation? So Lee does not like the oscillatory universe?

It is contained "within the moment" of the creation of this universe, yet, we do not know what design this particle is to be in context of the microscopic view of geometrical topologically finishes? As the Genus 1 figure and as an expression of this universe? You had to know what was lying in those valleys, and the potentials of expression, and I relay that in the blackhole horizon as a potential hill.

The time has come for some changes in this blog and I have been thinking about moving on. While a layman, I do not like to be treated like a fool. Maybe not educated fully and with some work to do, but never as a fool.

I am following behind on the different posts that I wanted to write. One of them in relation to the descent of a "measure gatherer" (sounds primitive doesn't it?) and the sound values produced from that "descent on Titan." Can make it "sound ancient" while current research is of value.

Almost, as if one is a cave dweller blowing dried paint over their hands, could possibly be thinking of fire and rays cast while their own shadows made them think of a sun that can enter the cave, and chains that need to be broken from thinking so circumspect..:)

The second one I wanted to talk about was in relation to Themis and the Aurora Borealis. The labels will hopefully help with my previous research that I had done as well as other perspectives that allowed me to see this sun earth relationship. Quasar has currently dealing with that topic further in "Coronal Mass Ejection" as well and Backreaction entitled, "NASA launch of THEMIS Satellite."

Anyway on to the essence of this post and why it is troubling to me. Many would not know what goes on in my head as I am currently looking at the relationship of the Bose Nova to the jet productions that issue from such spiralled tendency. Accretion disc and the idea of such spiralling, to a pipe that follows to making anti-matter productions?

See Water in Zero Gravity, by BackreactionHow did this all arise? So you see such an idea of the sphere in a vacuum is a point from which to begin the search for things that were not there before, so we now know that such collisions can indeed produce "new" information?

The action taken, although seems related to what Arivero is saying, and of course I already have much on this in terms of Han Jenny, and the taking of the Chaldni plate to spherical relations. As an experiment with a "balloons and dyes using sound" similar to "sand on that same chaldni plate."

There has been some contention about the results, but this is far from what I wanted to show in terms of the geometrics involved. Patience as to the energy produced from this interaction of "sound on the surface transferred inside" to cause a spherical collapse.

Seeing the tensorial action on the bubble moving sound inside, I had wondered about how such a collapse could increase the temperatures involved to produce this "super higgs fluid." Lubos Motl never gave this much thought and I of course am impressionable when it comes to the science mind. I could not shake it.

So we "assign fluids" as one might the "vacuum in space" to illustrate what we have as our way with these bubbles? These claims have not been fantastical other then what the science had been designed for, yet I am drawn to the schematics and geometrics.

So yes the ways in which the size of the blackhole could all of sudden collapse is critical here, to producing further results in what is required of the new physics? So looking for "such experimental processes" is always part of my resolve to understand the geometrics involved.

So the idea here that was troubling was the way in which the symmetry was broken in terms of the fluid flows demonstrated by the Broken Symmetry examples.

My perception is much different here in that the dynamical relation of "the super fluid", may have it's correlation in the Navier stokes equations. This is by "insinuation on my part." How preposterous such a thing to think that the conditions had to be "spelt out first" in order for us to understand the "new physics" beyond the standard model?

Using the geometrical basis of my thought pattern established as a point in a circle, or a point with "no boundary", it seems it is very difficult to talk about the universe if one does not include the way in which such dynamicals can perpetuate the energy within this system.

How is one suppose to find "a equilibrium" in such a "low entropic state?"

If we were to experimentally challenging any thinking with "relativistic processes" how could they have ever emerged out of the BB? Maybe, it was a "highly symmetric event" for any asymmetry to show itself as "discrete measures" defined in relation to the "energy of probable outcomes?"

Where did such reductionism begin for us to ask about the "cross over?"

We needed high energy perspective to realize that we were still talking about the universe. Are there any other processes within the cosmos that can be taken down to such rejuvenated qualities to new universes being born that while the arrow of time is pointed one way, that the universe itself allowed such expression to continue in the expansion rate, and the speed up?

A Higg's fluid? Something had to be "happening now" that would dictate?

Forgive me here for my ignorance in face of those better equipped.

So you are looking for "this point" where things cross over? It is highly supersymmetric, yet, we know that such matter states have been detailed and defined as "discrete" asymmetric matter states.

I made a comment above that needed to be looked at again so I am placing it here while it suffers it's fate in another location. The basis of the argument is an ole one indeed that has long been exchanged by Smolin and Susskind.

Now it is again one of those things that I am trying to make sense of while one could go off in a philosophical direction. While the "facts of the matter" and experimental results dictate my thinking here.

It's the fault of that ole' Platonic thinking, and the Pythagorean basis of the universe in expression thingy. The universe is very dynamical geometrically while one debates the essence of inflation and disregards what allows such an expression to bring "other ideas" into the fold. How this "eternal idea" can bring other factors in terms of the speed up into consideration, while one ponders why such a thing is happening?

Just another fancy way of looking at CNO and the law of Octaves? :) While some thought space was empty, there were aspects of that space "which was alive" regardless of the asymmetrical realization of the discrete matters?

So we want to define our relationship with the world in some computerized method? It has always been something of a struggle to explain how one may see the world as they lose the focus of distinctive sight and hearing and soon realize that if they are all amalgamated, you might get this idea of the gravitationally inclined atomized in some computerized process? Feelings?:)

You finally learnt something about yourself?

A thought crossed my mind. A fictional story?

It’s interesting what calorimetric measure can do when you are looking at cosmological events. So, the photon becomes descriptive in itself?

You are working “to set” the course of events? So we have this description then of the universe and it’s “phase transitions.” It’s behind the “value of the photon in it’s description and escape velocity” and it’s value also “gravitationally linked?”

So technology now stops the photon in flight? We can then “colour our views with the gravitationally inclined?”:) A “philosophical take” on new computerized development with feeling?

The leading computer technologies here is not to diverge from what I moved too in terms of understanding the human condition. This is very important to me, and includes not only our biological functioning, but our resulting affect from the physiological one as well.

So while "you think" I hope to chart the colours spectrally induced oscillatory universe from the "photon stop over" and subsequent information held in that abeyance. Sure it's a story of fiction right now, but in time I would like to see this connection to reality.

It may only rest at this time in conceptual framework that was constructed from what was available in the physics and science at our disposal, while I had to move forward slowly.

It was important to understand why there would be such divergences in perspective and how these would be lined up? Some of course did not want to take the time, but it was important to me to understand the "philosophical position" taken.

One could just as well venture to the condense matter theorist and said, what building blocks shall we use? One should not think the "history of Platonism" without some "other influences" to consider. Least you assign it to a "another particular subject" in it's present incarnation? An Oscillatory String Universe?

So the evolution here is much more then the "circumspect of the biological function," but may possible include other things that have not been considered?

Physiologically, the "biological function" had some other relation? So abstract that I assigned the photon? So I said "feelings," while Einstein might assigned them to a "short or long time" considering his state of mind? :)

More thought of course here on the "fictional presentation" submitted previous. As a layman I have a problem in that regard. :)

So no one knows how to combine thermodynamics and general relativity? Hmmm....Boltzmann puzzle..hmmmmm...and I slowly drift off in thought.

How does relativity ever arise out of such a situation? If "tunnelling was to occur" where would it occur, and where would "this equilibrium" find comparative Lagrangian relations in the universe? These perspectives are leading to what we see in the WMAP polarization patterns?

Are there not "comparative features" that allows for the low entropic states, within the existing universe? Allows us to return to those same entropic states in their respective regions, while "feeding" the universe?

You had to look for the conditions that would be similar would you not? And "supporting evidence" to explain the current universe speeding up. These conditions would have to support that contention.

I am holding off producing any new posts until I can bring the discussion to a suitable ending where Lee Smolin admits the ideas are not yet completed in terms of of our understanding of the landscape?

Clifford has a good humour post about real estate in the extra dimensions. Of course you had to follow other discourses here to understand how one may view what is "current in the thinking?"

This "balance in perspective" is not just one or the other but on how such perspective is formed around it. So on the one hand you have this Anthropic approach in string theory, and then you have the "philosophical differences on the other?"

Your trying to explain it and in so doing revealing the train of thought that was established. One does not disavow the road leading to the physics established of course, and no where is this intentional on differing perspectives

One does not have to think, or be insulted by "such stories" that have captured minds in our history. The "ideas of cultures" are pervaded by such religious practises and context, by the fascination of some greater being? Having worked with them long enough?

As a scientist, you know your place in the world. Yet, you dream of such "fantastical stories." About things travelling through the little towns in Europe, as if, seeing the "Overlords of Science." Like some futuristic God making it's way through the town of some primitive era on earth. "Shocked people" looking from windows, as this enormous object in the "war of the worlds," has finally come upon us.

It is important that one understands that such a thing having been studied by our scientists, is still a "noble thing." Where we learn to understand what these things could represent symbolically? Enlightenment possibly? When all the understanding of the "Neutrino overlords" are understood in their place and time.

Friday, December 29, 2006

While I have started off with the definition of the Wolf-Rayet star, the post ends in understanding the aspects of gravity and it's affects, as we look at what has become of these Wolf-Rayet stars in their desimination of it's constituent properties.

There are some thoughts manifesting about how one may have see this energy of the Blue giant. It's as if the examples of what began with great force can loose it's momentum and dissipate very quickly(cosmic winds that blow the dust to different places)?

What if the Wolf-Rayet star does not produce the jets that are exemplified in the ideas which begin blackhole creation. Is this part of blackhole development somehow in it's demise, that we may see examples of the 150 Wolf-Rayets known in our own Milky Way as example of what they can become as blackholes, or not.

Quark to quark Distance and the Metric

If on such a grand scale how is it thoughts are held in my mind to microscopic proportions may not dominate as well within the periods of time the geometrics develop in the stars now known as Wolf-Rayet. So you use this cosmological model to exemplify micro perspective views in relation to high energy cosmological geometrics.

While I had in the previous post talked about how Lagrangian views could dominate "two aspects of the universe," it is not without linking the idea of what begins as a strong gravitational force to hold the universe together, that over time, as the universe became dominated by the dark energy that the speeding up of inflation could have become pronounced by discovering the holes created in the distances between the planets and their moons. Between galaxies.

I make fun above with the understanding of satellites travelling in our current universe in relation to planets and moons, as well as galaxies. To have taken this view down to WMAP proportions is just part of what I am trying to convey using very simplistic examples of how one may look at the universe, when gravity dominated the universe's expansion versus what has happened to the universe today in terms of speeding up.

If the distances between galaxies have become greater, then what saids that that the ease with which the speeding up occurs is not without understanding that an equilibrium has been attained, from what was once dominate in gravity, to what becomes rapid expansion?

From Modelling to new thoughts on experimental processes and approach to the physics involved, it is important that one understands how this approach is considered. Not to loose sight of the relationship to high energy consideration and it's particle shower effect from such interactions.

Without some comprehension of RHIC valuation in production uses what was to be gained from cosmic particle collisions? What future in LHC inclusion of microstate with out some association to particle entities as a result of those collisions?

Reductionist processes leads to comprehension values that if let unnurtured, would not have allowed such model comprehension to exceed current limitation of thinking?

Saturday, September 30, 2006

It is important that you look at the date of this article following, and what has subsequently arisen from "then to now." The title of this post asked a legitimate question and it was answered in response to the disaster scenario's presented to the LHC "recenty?" Check the date on it? Not so recent?

Discovering this raised the conclusiveness about what was comparative to the cosmic ray collisions. This lead us to believe, the microscopic blackhole creation was safe. Becuase it happened all the time in the space above us. Just as we may see the aurora borealis in our observation in the interaction with the sun, so too, in cosmic particle collisions in ways beyond the standard model.

THis one post includes "lots of link"s from the accumulation of my thinkng as a layman. I had gathered these as they unfolded, to help me understand what was introduced to me some time ago by Paul on the question in regards to the "Disaster Scenario at LHC."

Now in regards to "new physics" one needed to see what would come out of such collisions that would be produced, so one had to indeed follow that thinking which I did. How far from the truth of it was what was generated in the public eye distant from what was published by the reputable scientists?

Well you would have to judge for yourself, and "my excuse," well it has been provided for me, so one can say as a layman I am really distant from the current thinking.

So yes before Cosmic Variance and the disaster scenario, it was in our conversations that "Mooreglade of Superstrintheory.com forum" introduced the article of "A Blackhole Ate My Planet" which lead too "Fate of our Planet"

So you see, between then and now, I was able to construct accordingly as I was exposed to the information in regards to "both ways" to which Lubos implies in that statement in comment link?

Okay. Now the stage has been set.

What has been Lubos been saying?

That the connection in "B's question" again sets the stage for further thoughts?

That's just the way of it and who better then student who will make way for further insights, whether it be "Lubos or B?"

In the past my mistake was made to "mirror" Lubos with Peter Woit, because I needed to see what the others may offer in regards to the positions they adopted. Or, another example would have been Smolin and Susskind, who bounced off each other. Or, Gell-mann or Feynman. Or maybe even Plato and Aristotle shhown in the picturte at the top of this Blog?

IN the above case with Peter Woit, I did not learn much? The counter arguments as to why strings were failing in the road to experimental validation(sure we were preoccupied with it's validity then), and how this message was being put out there.

So where are we today in regard to strings? Lubo's reference to Banks, Vilenkin, and Susskind already asking these questions is a significant pointer to what has already transpired, and what days, weeks, years, have passed before we see this statement today?

So we look for computerized versions to help enlighten. To "see" how the wave front actually embues circumstances and transfers gravitonic perception into other situations.

Was this possible without understanding the context of the pictures shared? What complexity and variable sallows us to construct such modellings in computers?

Okay so you know now that lisa Randall's picture was thrown inhere to hopefully help uyou see what I am saying about gravitonic consideration.

Anything beyond the spacetime we know, exists in dimensional perspectives, and the resulting "condensative feature" of this realization is "3d+1time." The gravitonic perception is "out there?" :)

Attributes of the Superfluids

Now it is with some understanding that the "greater energy needed" with which to impart our views on let's say "reductionism" has pointed us in the direction of the early universe.

So we say "QGP" and might say, "hey, is there such a way to measure such perspectives?" So I am using the graph, to point you in the right direction.

So we talk about where these beginnings are, and the "idea of blackholes" makes their way into our view because of th reductionistic standpoint we encountered in our philosophical ramblings to include now, "conditions" that were conducive to microstate blackhole creation.

The energy here is beyond the "collidial aspects" we encounter, yet, we have safely move our perceptions forward to the QGP? We have encounter certain results. You have to Quantum dynamically understand it, in a macro way? See we still talk about the universe, yet froma microscopic perception.

Let's move on here, as I have.

If you feel it too uncomfortable and the "expanse of space quantumly not stimulating" it's okay to hold on to the railings like I do, as I walked close to the "edge of the grand canyon."

So here we are.

I gave some ideas as to the "attributes of the superfluids" and the history in the opening paragraph, to help perspective deal with where that "extra energy has gone" and how? So you look for new physics "beyond" the current understanding of the standard model.

So, it was appropriate to include the graviton as a force carrier? Qui! NOn?